JCTVC-B054 [M. Zhou (TI)] Proposed low complexity video encoder settings for HEVC
In recent years camera phones, camcorders, video surveillance and video conferencing applications have grown quickly and evolved into another major video market. Real-time, high quality video encoder and decoder at low-cost and low power consumption are required to serve this market’s needs. In this contribution low complexity video encoder settings were proposed. By considering characteristics of the low-complexity encoder designs and projected circuit design capability, it was proposed to limit the maximum CU size to 64 x 64 and maximum transform size to 32 x 32, enable CABAC, IBDI and simplified RDO, and turn off RDOQ and ALF in the settings. It was advocated that the HEVC tools should be tested for both high complexity and low complexity encoder environments so that the final HEVC design can satisfy the requirements of a wide range of video applications.
Some main differences of the suggested configuration vs. current plans were as follows:
-
Minimum PU size 8x8
-
Maximum transform size 32x32
-
IBDI on (no strong opinion)
-
Entropy coding not VLC
It was agreed to explore the potential benefit of 64x64 vs 32x32 maximum transform size in a TE.
JCTVC-B065 [T. Murakami, K. Sugimoto, S. Sekiguchi, S. Yamagishi, Y. Kato, K. Asai (Mitsubishi)] Consideration on guideline of complexity/performance balance for HEVC test model definition
This contribution provided information on guideline of the balance between computational complexity and coding performance to be considered toward HEVC test model definition. At the last Dresden meeting, the group made successful progress such that a recommended toolset “TMuC” as the starting point for defining a test model was created. To clarify the process of test model definition from the manufacturer’s viewpoint, this document discussed two topics to suggest how to proceed for test model definition from the TMuC, 1) performance/complexity trade-off of the CfP submissions made at Dresden meeting, and 2) tool based evaluation using software of some best performing proposals that have been made available to the group so far.
Analysis of RD performance of proposals to CfP, and also encoding time compared to anchor (though having 20% and more benefit in terms of bitrate reduction, most proposals have more than 5x encoding time in their respective SW implementation compared to AVC anchors).
There was some concern expressed whether the figure is really precise.
Suitable performance/complexity tradeoff? Analysis of "complexity graph" from MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4 and AVC show that most proposals are too complex to fall into this development.
Analysis on tools basis: Largest gains achieved by large blocks, large transforms and in-loop Wiener filter. These results were achieved by turning on individual tools (alternative could have been to turn on everything and turn off individual tools with all others running).
Definition of test model should be made based on tools that give comparably large benefits in compression against reasonable complexity.
Decoding time was not considered.
Dostları ilə paylaş: | 
